The point is "lard-*** yank-me ********", that you can't just magically take those two things away and say he's a "debateable" top ten of all-time. Dude was a .500 pitcher who walked more guys than anyone in history by a mile. Thus...MEDIOCRITY. Sure, he sold tickets, sure he was fun to watch, but there's at LEAST 50 guys in history I'd take in front of "Mr. Walk". ****...he deserves that name more than BOB Walk.

Uh, you midwestern retard, he's 5th all-time in IP. Since he did walk a batter every other inning, he should be WAY up there in career walks. Nobody is debating the fact that he and homeplate weren't always close pals. He was also allergic to giving up hits. IMO, if I have a guy going 9 and giving up 11 baserunners, I'm OK with 5 of them being walks. Would you rather he give up 11 hits and no walks?

And, for the record, GTFO = Get The **** Out. I don't think Ryan is a debatable top 10. Top 25.

Mikey, you did say BB/9 was a problem for him. So its not just longevity.

Now, if I take away his iffy WHIP, can I make an argument for Wilson Alvarez (even with Nolan Ryan in career ERA+) as top 50 pitcher all time?

That's all rsp and I are saying here, to a degree.

Dear Nolan Ryan, If you're so damn good, why the f*ck are you sharing territory with Wilson freaking Alvarez in a statistic that captures more of the essential elements of the pitcher's value than others?

The one answer I have heard that has resonated is because the guy threw the ball so damn much, you would have some operational/administrative value when managing the rest of your roster.

Resources could be used on a better bench, a better bat, rather than another arm in the pen. Or maybe your relievers are that much more rested the day after a Nolan start, giving you a better chance to win THAT game, rather than the game Nolan was in.

That's the best I've heard. The fanboy drooling over strikeouts - while attractive - doesn't really resonate, nor does the purely subjective statements of "Top-whatever all-time!".

Oh. See, I thought the point of pitching was to prevent the guys on the other team who run around the bases from touching that little squarey/diamondy thing that sits in front of the umpire and catcher.

So essentially Alvarez allowed 1 more baserunner every nine innings. Not exactly the type of advantage you'd expect from a "TOP WHATEVER ALL-TIME" pitcher stacked up against a guy who was essentially a journeyman.

So, if I use a pitcher with a 1.143 WHIP(like Greg Maddux) and say "So essentially Ryan allowed 1 more baserunner every nine innings. Not exactly the type of advantage you'd expect from a "TOP WHATEVER ALL-TIME" pitcher stacked up against a guy who was essentially a journeyman" would my statement be correct?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/19/2013 10:52:00 AM (view original):FIP is the best stat. And Ryan compares with the best.

FIP isn't the best stat. It's the one that supports your contention that Ryan was one of "the best". Everyone picks and chooses their stats to support their own beliefs. If you want to say Ryan is terrible, you pick walks; if you want to say Ryan is great, you pick FIP or OAV or any durability measures; if you want to say Ryan is mediocre, you use every other stat.